The 22% are probably thankful for the pre-existing exclusion being eliminated. That unfairly traps many people. But if the GOP deals with that issue forthrightly and gets their message out not withstanding the enemy Media's snow job on the issue, then they will come on over too, unless they work for the AARP or a similar fascist government scam.

assuming that most of the flock on here oppose it, please list the three things, in order of importance, that you want to do away with. (all of it doesn't count...just list the provisions that you find most objectionable)

I want the mandate to be thrown out - whether by the courts or the legislature. To me, something needed to be done about healthcare, but 2400 pages or 2700 pages was overkill. And the mandate, imo, is unconstituional. That's a big problem.

I also oppose the idea of government officials and/or bureaucrats deciding what procedure are acceptable and what aren't - what will be funded and what won't. We are individuals. One size does not fit all. Different treatments work well with some people and are ineffective with others. The individual needs to be treated - as an individual, imo.

HD: It's not insurance, and thus completely unsustainable economically. All of the other bad stuff (i.e. the government making health care decisions for individuals, the stunting of innovation and progress on the treatment of disease) flows from that.

HD...Health Insurance can be regulated. It already is by States. But if the clear intention is to destroy the Private Insurance industry just to get fascist Government stooges' death panel and rationing hands around the throat of old and disabled folks, then Sara Palin was 100% right. And how are the Dems going to win that war unless they first get the old and disabled labeled subhuman vermin...Like the Nazi Party did to the Jews? Your answer cannot be because the love us too much, because they only love easy money.

But if the clear intention is to destroy the Private Insurance industry just to get fascist Government stooges' death panel and rationing hands around the throat of old and disabled folks, then Sara Palin was 100% right.

What if the clear intention is to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?

Where in the Constitution can you find the part about making people buy stuff? If people don't participate in commerce, the Commerce Clause is not invoked.

Congress, your elected representatives in government, can enact legislation to take money from you and buy stuff with that money. I don't see why health care or health insurance is any different than a highway in this regard. Why does the commerce clause need to come into it?

What if the clear intention is to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?

That would not require a 2000+ page piece of legislation that "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."

The healthcare legislation was far more about health insurance than health care. Health care is what you receive from medical providers. Very little about actual health care was in the bill. Instead, it created multiple levels of bureaucracy and regulations primarily focused on paying for health care.

Congress, your elected representatives in government, can enact legislation to take money from you and buy stuff with that money. I don't see why health care or health insurance is any different than a highway in this regard. Why does the commerce clause need to come into it?

Dude, it's because of what the law says. Look at the law. The law penalizes people for not buying health insurance. There is no tax. It's a penalty. A tax is not a penalty. A penalty is not a tax.

Democrats are hoisted on their own rhetorical petard here. Of course -- of course -- there couldn't be a tax because Congressional Democrats were adamant that their vaunted health insurance bill would not raise taxes. So they thought up this brilliant penalty for people who don't buy insurance and tried to invoke exactly the Commerce Clause, because the federal government operates under limited powers.

If Congress wants to institute a tax, the constitutional grounds for that is much, much stronger. But this most recent Congress was too pussy for that.

It is clear that this is not the primary intention. If it were, they could have done this MUCH more cheaply and left everybody else alone.

Exactlty which is why I would have backed a Federally funded catastrophic care plan for the uninsured/uninsurable. Create a nominal monthly premium (ala Medicare) with the rest subsidized by the taxpayer. No it won't pay for your annual physical or well baby care which it shouldn't. Routine medical care should be your responsibility.

I agree that Congress made a mess for themselves by phrasing the law they way they did. It is a puzzle to me. Nonetheless, I would not be surprised to see some backpedaling about whether or not it is a tax if that appears to be the constitutionally viable label.

Triangle Man...The existing system provided free services at Hospitals to all in need. That is why my hospital bill reads $80,000 for 8 days. The real cost of serving me was maybe $16,000, and by my bill being paid at $80,000 by my private carrier, the extra $64,000 went to the free patients, and my rates for coverage reflect that fact. There is no need for a take over to get the free patients treated. It's all a trick to get control over who lives and who dies. I admit that compared to the Global Warming(CO2 is proclaimed poison) Trick it is a minor trick.The Global Warming trick gets everybody, while the health insurance take over trick only get the old and the disabled. As Ted Turner said, Obam got his trick priorities wrong.

I would not be surprised to see some backpedaling about whether or not it is a tax if that appears to be the constitutionally viable label.

I'm certain that's one of the arguments. Congress can and should fix this problem by amending the law. I would like to see major amendments -- a complete and drastic overhaul. But a simple change from penalty to tax would, in my opinion, fix this problem. And it's not merely a technical issue, either. Congress must stay within its boundaries as set out by the existing Constitution. Otherwise, we aren't a government by us or of us.

What if the clear intention [had been] to get health care coverage for the uninsured/unemployed?

Then, they would have passed something far different.

I would suggest that most of those who still believe that that was the true reason and intention behind ObamaCare are in that 22%, and likely half of them watch Stewart and Cobert for their news.

Think about it for a minute. The justification was initially 45 million uninsured. But, then when 1/3 of those turned out to be illegals, the 30 million was used. But no one ever looked into that figure that closely, I would suggest because it would show that a significant portion of those opted out to spend their insurance money on drugs and alcohol. I am not talking the drug addicts necessarily, but rather the Stewart and Cobert watchers who just want to party a bit before they have to grow up.

So, maybe we need to extend the safety net to cover another 5-10% of the population. Does that mean the penalty shot down yesterday in court? Mandatory insurance? Abolition of low-cap and high deductible plans? All those boards, commissions, etc.?

I would suggest that it doesn't. It could have been accomplished far easier with, say, a national catastrophic medical plan, which aren't very expensive, and maybe an expansion in Medicaid and Medicare. It would have been far cheaper, and far less disruptive.

I would suggest though that the goal wasn't just to provide a safety net for everyone, but to spread the wealth around. To give everyone pretty much the same coverage, regardless of their ability, or worse, willingness to work and pay for their own health care and health care insurance.

What I find the most humorous about it though is that unions backed ObamaCare and the Democrats, despite the fact that ultimately they are going to be some of the bigger losers. It all comes from their "leadership" being willing to sell out their members's interest in order to sit at the big table with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.

And yet -- I wonder how many of those polled know what's in the bill. Are they reacting to what they are told by politicians who are only out to seek power.

Actually, since the favorability of ObamaCare seems to be still sliding, it appears that the more people know about it, the less they like it. It wasn't so bad, until they discovered that it doesn't take 2,000 pages of legislation, numerous boards, commissions, and panels, etc. to solve the problem of 5-10% of the population uninsured.

Taxes are used to raise revenue. Apparently, the penalty is expected to raise $4 billion. The total cost of the bill is pushing $1 trillion. It is not a revenue-raising measure. It is coercion to get you to do something the government wants.

it doesn't take 2,000 pages of legislation, numerous boards, commissions, and panels, etc. to solve the problem of 5-10% of the population uninsured

Moreover, as was mentioned upthread, is it really cheaper to have these layers of costs than to just force hospitals to eat costs at emergency rooms and transfer those eaten costs to paying customers? I don't think it is. I think the perfectly good way things are now is cheaper.

Congress, your elected representatives in government, can enact legislation to take money from you and buy stuff with that money. I don't see why health care or health insurance is any different than a highway in this regard. Why does the commerce clause need to come into it?

Because that isn't the way that our government was designed to operate. We supposedly have a national government of limited enumerated powers, with the remainder of the powers reserved for the states and the people. That was the intent, and that is what the Constitution says.

Only democrats could fuck something up so bad. It takes a perverse form of genius to do what they have done.

They wanted universal coverage for the uninsured and those with existing pre-conditions. It's too simple for them to just expand Medicaid and means test the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions.

They are too cowardly to cover their cost shifting of Medicare and Medicaid on the private sector. ER's, hospitals and doctors should be billing the government directly for the services provided to the indigent or deadbeats who game the system when federal law requires them to treat them. Why let Congress off the hook? Let the bastards have to vote to appropriate the money instead of the dirty, sneaky way their doing it now. If republicans were actually serious about these mandates they would propose this. Congress having to argue and vote for the funds to cover the forced subsidies. Give the voters the choice:

The only thing that keeps the democrats going as a national party instead of becoming what it really is a marginal and regional leftist party is the never ending stupidity and timidity of the national and state republican leadership.

This bill is not likely to survive the courts. There simply too many flaws in it to survive the court review. The tax issue, the mandates and the takings clause matter are more than enough to scuttle this ship of fools. What comes after that remains to be seen.

How humiliating for Obama. First he had to grant exemptions to virtually all of his political allies because the HCR was such a fuck-up, and now 2/3rds of the country realize that he's still forcing it on them while the Courts are basically calling him an idiot. His bid for the title "Worst President Ever" is all but assured now.

(His fragile sanity is gonna crumble completely if he doesn't get to a Hawaiian resort, ASAP.)

"Does anyone know if Congress itself must use Obamacare? They always seem to exclude themselves from the nonsense they make the rest of us abide by."

I read recently (Wall Street Journal article, I think) that they intended to exclude themselves but slipped up and didn't ("damn, I knew we should have read that bill"). Not to worry, Congress critters said, they do not intend to honor the law.

Does anyone know if Congress itself must use Obamacare? They always seem to exclude themselves from the nonsense they make the rest of us abide by.

What exactly is there to 'use' in ObamaCare? I believe that for the most part they will be subject to its provisions. However, they don't have to worry about an individual mandate, since they have insurance paid for by taxpayers. If their plans are considered 'Cadillac' plans, then that would incur a %40 tax on their employers, not them. Their plan would have to cover their children up to age 26, but what do they care? It's not like they work in the private sector where their company has to meet expenses or someone will get laid off.

I seem to recall hearing of some provision that would affect them negatively that they forgot to exclude themselves from, but all in all it seemed pretty minor.

Maybe for another two years. And, they will likely pull out all the stops in the next election. Voter fraud, and all that. But they will get a much cooler reception when the next Republican enters the White House.

Keep in mind that some of the biggest beneficiaries of the waivers have been the public employee unions that have provided so much support for the President. But the House in the next Congress is not going to look kindly at all at continuing to bail them out, esp. knowing how much money and manpower the unions employed against them. And, so, I expect that their ranks won't increase over the next couple of years, like they have under Obama.

How in the fuck could you do that if nobody in Congress read the bill! It makes no sense.

You've made a couple passes at the shark pen. Are you going up the ramp shortly?

You do realize that someone actually WROTE the language in that bill. It wasn't a million liberal monkeys on a million typewriters. It was the public face, the politicians, that rammed it home without reading it. They are supposed to be servants of the people. I don't know who actually wrote the bill, though. Do you?

Garage, the plan was written, beginning back in the Nineties, by various Leftist orgs, including Americans For Progress. Congress was not allowed to read it by Pelosi because she knew exactly what kind of Socialist pap the "professional Left" would have produced, and that Americans would reject it outright.

You should really pay attention to politics if you want to contribute to these discussions. This is common knowledge, and was discussed widely at the time of the ram-through.

You do realize that someone actually WROTE the language in that bill. It wasn't a million liberal monkeys on a million typewriters. It was the public face, the politicians, that rammed it home without reading it. They are supposed to be servants of the people. I don't know who actually wrote the bill, though. Do you?

So some sort of Man Behind the Curtain wrote the bill. Or a Grand Puppeteer?

I've often wondered if single-source advocates believe that it's better than the current system...or just more fair.

I don't think very many of them really think that it is better, and may believe, as most of us (Garage excepted) that it worse. But it was worth it for them, because health care availability will now be more fair. The wealth is being spread around, and the quality overall of our health care will be brought down to the level of those who won't work for theirs, cannot afford such, or just want to spend the money on booze and pot.

IE, if Wellpoint wrote it, the intent was concrete and deliberate, going back to my original point. Then you have to wonder why so many Congress members, those who's votes allowed it to become law, didn't understand what they were voting on outside summaries drawn up by leadership staffers...who, coincidentally, aren't elected either.

There's even a requirement that sales of gold bullion over $600 will now require a disclosure to the Federal government, in the form of a 1099 report.Nothing says "I Care About the Poor People!" like sneaking in bullshit tax regulations on precious metals.

The chances that Obama's health care takeover would ultimately survive were never been than about 50%. Now the odds are about 100-1 against him.

better care can be provided at a lower marginal cost under a single payer system

Except it can't. Canada's health care system is not solvent, and people from Canada come here for serious problems. Therefore, we have empirical evidence that marginal cost will not be lower and that the system will not be better.

Moreover, stories of patient neglect are so common in single-payer systems as to be routine.

Americans don't want a single-payer system and would never stand for it if one existed.

Finally, what is stopping any American state from adopting a single-payer system? I'll answer that one for you: nothing. So hasn't it happened?

We were 'sold' (force fed) this piece of legislation disguised as a 'health care' bill. In fact, is is chock full of things having NOTHING TO DO with health care - that restrict or eliminate certain liberties.

http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/images/ObamaCareoverreach.pdf

'You have to pass the bill so you can see whats in it'.

Question: would you buy a car from someone that told you 'a' car costs $25,000 - but you couldn't actually see or drive it until you signed the finance contract/buying agreement?

Of course not. Nancy Pelosi is an idiot, my apologies to idiots. How the hell is it that she has anything at all to say about what goes on in this country?

Because nothing says cost efficiency more than a monsterous government program.

LOL!

I think the cost savings are not thought to be on the administrative side.

I am not a supporter of this approach, but my understanding is that cost-savings will come from squeezing the providers and pharmaceutical companies, and by reducing waste in treatment costs by building the evidence base for treatments that work through "comparative effectiveness research".

I thought single-payer was supposed to cost less. And no, we aren't getting crappy single-payer coverage.

The only way that it could cost less is if everyone who already had decent health insurance lost coverage. And, compounding this you have numerous mandates as to coverage, as well as the government in charge.

Think of how it might be possible to:- increase the number of those covered by health care insurance- decrease the out-of-pocket expenditures of those using health care insurance- increase the number of mandated coverages- raise the cap for low-cap health insurance policies- lower the deductibles for high deductible policies,- etc.All while reducing the overall cost. Sound impossible? Sure does to me.

So, in the end, they played a shell game with the CBO, not scoring the cost of the mandates (since many of them were in the province of the Secretary), including a cut for reimbursing doctors and hospitals for Medicare patients, etc. And they got fictitious figures that they could use to bypass Senate rules, and try to justify themselves with the American public.

The single payer is a finance method. The Nationalized Health Plan is a means to restrict money paid out by treating large statistical groups according to a mean level of need...always going down as the money goes away into more AlGore Hoaxes... and not by treating individual patient's needs. Ask any Harvard guy how brilliant they are to think of that. That is all they teach them.

1. In the name of cost containment, foolish and semi-competent government bureaucrats will regulate and then control doctor-patient decisions.2. Lack of competition and government control will stifle innovation in delivery of care.3. The people who passed the law also exempted themselves from it's rules.

but my understanding is that cost-savings will come from squeezing the providers and pharmaceutical companies, and by reducing waste in treatment costs by building the evidence base for treatments that work through "comparative effectiveness research".

Bottom line about all of this - and what Mr. Cuccinelli is saying - if the federal government can compel you to buy health 'coverage', 'insurance', whatever, then they can compel you to do ANYTHING. So all the discussion about management models, finance, etc etc having to do with this thing may be academic. The liberals are completely blind to liberty, until they feel that their 'false' liberty, i.e. the right to someone else's property, is threatened.

One critical difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals think that the government can be a force for good, and that it's okay to compel good. As a conservative, I say fuck that. I don't care how good and noble your goals are. The critical and insurmountable problem is the compulsion.

Funding research into which treatments work best is the kind of meddling into my personal doctor-patient relationships I can get behind.

Ok, then throw some money at that problem. Maybe a billion or so. Not considered to be real money any more. It surely didn't take 2,000+ pages of legislation passed in the middle of the night with no one having voting on the bill having had a chance to read it for such a program.

The problem though is that when this is combined with government control, all of a sudden you go from an advisory role to control over what treatments are covered and what treatments are not. And, yes, which ones are cost-effective, and which ones are not as much so.

We see where that leads with some of government insurance programs in, say the UK and Canada, where budget restraints end up pushing patients into the low cost, high pain solution.

I said I hated the mandate. Being forced to buy insurance without the public option was a horrible idea. Insurance companies love the mandate though, the Supreme Court would certainly rule for the mandate, it's in the insurance companies interests to have the mandate. What they do want is to strip out regulations and consumer protections in the law.

One critical difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals think that the government can be a force for good, and that it's okay to compel good. As a conservative, I say fuck that. I don't care how good and noble your goals are. The critical and insurmountable problem is the compulsion.

I agree with the compulsion. I don't like it either.

But another complaint I have with liberals and their world view is that results don't matter. Rather, intent is what matters. That they tried to do good, even if it fails miserably, causing untold pain and suffering, is all that matters.

So...we've come full circle. There wasn't some back room star chamber of conspiracy here. It was right there, plain as day, concrete and deliberate...and the reps/senators did not avail themselves of the opportunity (said they didn't have time in more than one case) to know what they hell they were about to foist on the people of this country.

You say you hate the mandate? In the absence of a severance clause...which the insurance company you named forgot to put in...(conspiracy?)...the financing structure does indeed collapse like the upthread house of cards.

"But another complaint I have with liberals and their world view is that results don't matter. Rather, intent is what matters. That they tried to do good, even if it fails miserably, causing untold pain and suffering, is all that matters."

I agree with this take, and would like to follow up with a question about this, for our liberal friends:

If results don't matter, and intent is the greatest consideration - how do you explain the love affair with fairness and equal 'outcomes'? Can you have it both ways?

I am not a supporter of this approach, but my understanding is that cost-savings will come from squeezing the providers and pharmaceutical companies

And when squeezed sufficiently, their profit margins will drop to the point where it makes no sense for them to research new treatments. They'll make more money doing something else, and they'll drop out of that business.

Unless, of course... Gee, if the government can compel me to buy insurance, I guess the government can compel them to work in an unprofitable business! And when they go bankrupt, the government can take control like they did with GM!

"Funding research into which treatments work best is the kind of meddling into my personal doctor-patient relationships I can get behind."

As Seven said, it's being done now. By doctors, scientists, and medical professionals. What do you think all those big, research intensive Medical Schools do? It's really quite an insult, actually, when Obama stands up there and claims to have discovered the wisdom of studying which treatments work best.

That is arguably, the worst thing of all in this grand scheme. A system that has produced great innovation will now "planned" from Washington.

it appears if we had either one national health plan or at least a government option to offer an alternative and provide competition with the private insurance companies, then all this discussion would be for nothing.

instead the preference seems to be in a health delivery system that doesn't give a very good prognosis for a very ill patient.

Prepaid healthcare for all is a social welfare program, and will not be achieved by regulating the medical insurance industry.

If this is what you want, then call a spade a spade, and call for nationalization of the health care industry, or at least the major parts of it, such as the hospitals and the hospital staffs, and be prepared to support them from tax revenues.

I think that is what most European countries have today, with a small private medical industry operating on the side, for which you can buy private insurance to pay for major expenses.

The national health services are huge bureaucracies, and operate as such, but free, or nearly so, while the private doctors and clinics give personal and convenient service, but charge you directly.

@HDHouse"it appears if we had either one national health plan or at least a government option to offer an alternative and provide competition with the private insurance companies, then all this discussion would be for nothing.

instead the preference seems to be in a health delivery system that doesn't give a very good prognosis for a very ill patient.

just sayin'"

I didn't go to an insurance company when I needed health care. I went to a doctor.

The problem with offering a government-supplied 'alternative' is that the government can dictate whatever regulations, cost controls, etc that they want with NO RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FISCALLY SOUND. Private concerns, faced with the same regulations, cost controls, etc would have to play along to stay in business, which wouldn't be for long. Couple this with being forced to offer insurance to people with preexisting conditions that cost more to treat, you have a recipe to bankrupt private health insurers. If this is the purpose, then by all means, the government should get involved.

The answer is with critical care insurance, not a 'one-size-fits-all' policy that covers things that healthy people would never use. Making everyone adhere to this would be wasteful and there would be little incentive for a government administration to provide a quality product like we have with a private system. The only thing gov't administration would do is ration care to contain costs. That is what we are headed for if this bad idea known as 'Obamacare' is fully implemented. I have many friends that are doctors, they have grave concerns (no pun intended) and take a dim view of those that support this 'plan', often referred to as a disaster. So, if you really don't have a handle on what this all means, have a frank discussion with your doctor. If you know a doctor as a friend, stay chummy with he/her as this may be the only lifeline you have if this awful plan survives 'pregnancy' and and is born as a true socialist healthcare system. In other words, I don't recommend pissing off your doctor.

it appears if we had either one national health plan or at least a government option to offer an alternative and provide competition with the private insurance companies, then all this discussion would be for nothing.

This is one of the more ridiculous things that HDHouse has said over the years, and that says something.

First, there is the liberal assumption that we have all heard so often here, without any real support, that there is no competition in the health insurance market. And that we need the government to step in and create some. Baloney.

To the extent that there isn't competition, it is solely because of government regulation, primarily at the state level. Insurance mandated coverages and regulation of rates is the culprit here. And if lack of competition were the real problem here, all that the feds would have to do would be to ban rate fixing and insurance coverage mandates by state governments, and possibly allow the selling of insurance across state lines. We don't need the massive disaster commonly known as ObamaCare to solve that supposed problem.

And, how does the government compete with private insurance companies? They don't have a prayer doing so on their own, because of their innate inefficiency. The only way that they can "compete" with private insurance companies is with massive taxpayer funded financing.

If they want taxpayer funded health care as an alternative, then admit it straight up. But don't pretend that the government can compete on a level playing field with private companies here, or, indeed, anywhere.

No easy answers here, but without BIG time citizen intrusion into what the government previously created with Medicare, Medicaid, Schip and Uncompensated Care... for illegals, as an example, there will be NO WAY OUT.

Private insurance is there, but primarily because private businesses are allowing this charade to continue. Given one iota of sense, OR the desire to be REALLY competitive at their own businesses, private companies will up salaries modestly and get away from the health care provider business entirely.

So TRaditional guy are you saying that if we had universal coverage you eight day hospital bill of $80,000 would be reduced to $16,000 because you as an individual would not have to pay for those who do not have health insurance-- I agree a great argument for some kind of national plan. Let us not use the emergency room care as our socialistic alternative-- wink, wink,,

Seven Femmes is really coasting on the lack of support for provisions that aren't yet active.

Anyway, if you want to socialize hospital bills alone by encouraging use of the emergency room as the primary source of preventive care for everyone in this country, just admit it. It helps bring the whole debate into focus. Not that some people can stand that.

The goal of the troll is very often to silence people he disagrees with. I'm glad you read my stuff, though. No one reads yours. I certainly don't. However, I did note that you mentioned me in a thread not long ago that I didn't even participate in. That was rich. Just remember, dude: you apparently masturbate to your disagreements with me, but no one cares about you or to talk to you. This includes people who agree with you.

I would have backed a Federally funded catastrophic care plan for the uninsured/uninsurableIt's up and running, but it's supposed to go away in 2014 when the unicorns arrive. It ain't cheap, but better than bankruptcy.

Oh goodie! It looks like Fenster has now decided to become my own personal psychiatrist!

Or at least he has taken up the gobbledy-gook avocation of "psychoanalyst". That would be a better description of what he's attempting.

Fenster, given your certain adherence to Hippocratic principles, what sort of good can I expect someone as negative as yourself to provide me? I mean, I do want to make sure I'm getting something out of this relationship that you're proposing.